GAO found that: (1) for fiscal year (FY) 1990, the FCA Chairman rated IG as minimally successful because IG did not adequately comply with government auditing standards and meet certain annual audit planning requirements; (2) 31 of the 36 examples the Chairman used to support its appraisal did not demonstrate a lack of compliance with government auditing standards; (3) although adequate evidence in the IG files indicated that IG addressed all annual audit planning elements required by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-73, most of them were not included in the IG schedule of audits that the Chairman reviewed; (4) in two critical job elements, the performance appraisal did not support the minimally successful IG rating; (5) during FY 1991, the Chairman changed the IG position description and performance plan, but did not place any limitations on duties and responsibilities that were inconsistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978; (6) the Chairman understood the IG reporting responsibilities under the IG Act; (7) FCA announced the OIG existence and purpose to its employees; and (8) IG resolved prior problems in obtaining FCA records and information needed to fulfill audit responsibilities.